Americans United - richard landhttps://www.au.org/tags/richard-land
enRadical Reactions: Yes, The Religious Right Is Freaking Out Over The Marriage Equality Rulinghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/radical-reactions-yes-the-religious-right-is-freaking-out-over-the-marriage
<a href="/about/people/barry-lynn-0">Barry Lynn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association tweeted, &quot;June 26, 2015: I saw Satan dancing with delight, the day the music died in the United States of America.”</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p><em>The Washington Post </em>over the weekend published a rather silly column online by Judd Birdsall, managing director of the Cambridge Institute on Religion &amp; International Studies, asserting that opponents of same-sex marriage had reacted gracefully to Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court.</p><p>Birdsall asserted that groups like Americans United had unfairly tarred marriage equality foes as extremists when in fact their responses had been tempered. He noted my <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/supreme-court-decision-on-marriage-equality-will-spur-new-round-of-religious">comment on Friday</a>: “Today love and the Constitution triumphed over bigotry and religious extremism. That’s a great step, but no one should expect the Religious Right and its political allies to give up. They are already working to throw up as many roadblocks as possible to prevent LGBT Americans from claiming their hard-won rights.”</p><p>I’m not sure which cave Birdsall has been residing in, but it’s time for him to come out. He notes that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued measure statements. That’s true. But there are some other statements Birdsall might want to look up. AU Director of Communications Rob Boston has been collecting them. Here is a sample:</p><p>* Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who earlier <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/criminalising.christianity.mike.huckabee.says.legalising.same.sex.marriage.threatens.religious.liberty/56732.htm">claimed that equality will</a> “threaten the foundation of religious liberty, criminalize Christianity, and demand that Americans abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage,” issued a statement in which <a href="http://mikehuckabee.com/blogs?ID=3CAAABD5-9321-47FC-8D71-1156A6F56FB7">he fulminated</a>, “The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do – redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”</p><p>* Rick Santorum, who is also seeking the presidency, dredged up the inevitable <em><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-santorum-statement-gay-marriage">Dred Scott comparison</a></em>. He <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rick-santorum-justice-kennedy-is-potentially-disrupting-the?utm_term=.vi7pE0ZnE#.pypEV4A359">later added</a> that the court’s ruling is “potentially disrupting the foundation of the world.”</p><p>* Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called for a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/scott-walker-ban-gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment-119470.html">constitutional amendment</a>. Upping the ante, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz said it’s time for a <a href="https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/614507350297186304">new Constitutional Convention</a>. (Maybe Cruz plans to go for the trifecta and also overturn the health-care and housing decisions from last week.)</p><p>* Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, in an audio clip, said “we cannot obey” the ruling. (It’s unclear how Staver plans to disobey a ruling that doesn’t require him to do anything other than mind his own business.)</p><p>* Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was very unhappy. In a statement Perkins asserted, “No court can overturn natural law. Nature and Nature’s God, hailed by the signers of our Declaration of Independence as the very source of law, cannot be usurped by the edict of a court, even the United States Supreme Court.”</p><p>* Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association (AFA), was so distraught he made two statements. The <a href="http://www.afa.net/the-stand/press-releases/rogue-court-rejects-rule-of-law/">first</a> accused a “Rogue Court” of rejecting the rule of law. It asserts, “Sadly, our nation’s highest Court, which should be a symbol of justice, has chosen instead to be a tool of tyranny, elevating judicial will above the will of the people.” Wildmon later issued <a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2015/06/26/scotus-ruling-on-marriage-a-spiritual-911?utm_source=OneNewsNow&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=16781399&amp;utm_content=105486778159&amp;utm_campaign=19753">another statement</a> that said in part, “I fear for our country, quite frankly, because this is a spiritual 9/11, I believe. We have said to God Almighty, We don't care what you say about marriage and your definition of what's natural and normal. If you look in the scripture, often times when God's people rebelled against Him, He turned them over to destruction. Christians need to pray for mercy and we need to pray for a revival in the land.”</p><p>* Richard Land, a former chief lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention and now president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, released this statement: “Now the battlefield shifts to religious freedom. Will the progressive, totalitarian and intolerant left weaponize the government and attempt to force or compel people to affirm same-sex behavior and relationships? Or will they respect the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution? These will continue to be questions for the coming generations, now that the high Court has seized the historic role of defining marriage from the individual states and stripped it away from voters.”</p><p>There were other strange reactions. A football player with the Minnesota Vikings <a href="http://deadspin.com/vikings-cb-same-sex-marriage-ruling-one-step-closer-to-1714178473">decided to weigh in</a> with his opinion that the ruling will lead to pedophilia. Bryan Fischer of the AFA went on a tear and tweeted these gems: “Great need of the hour: governors who will defy the Supreme Court, refuse to issue sodomy-based licenses in their states” and “June 26, 2015: the day the twin towers of truth and righteousness were blown up by moral jihadists.” Wait, there’s more: “June 26, 2015: I saw Satan dancing with delight, the day the music died in the United States of America.”</p><p>Charming.</p><p>And then there’s the Rev. Rick Scarborough. Scarborough, a Texas pastor who is a kind of poor man’s Jerry Falwell, vowed that he and other pastors would <a href="http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/brint/texas_pastor_says_hell_self_himself_on_fire_in_protest_of_equality">set themselves on fire</a> if the high court ruled in favor of marriage equality. (Not surprisingly, Scarborough is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/rick-scarborough-fire-gay-marriage_n_7674990.html">backing away from the claim</a> now that the decision has come down. He was speaking metaphorically, you see.)</p><p>(In the midst of all of this craziness, I was amused by the reaction of one group, the Liberty Institute, a Texas-based Religious Right legal outfit, which actually tried to spin the decision as a win. Its rather curious press release noted, “As today’s Supreme Court ruling recognizes, Americans have a constitutional right to speak and act according to their beliefs.” That has never really been in doubt, of course.)</p><p>I’m just scratching the surface here of some of the more extreme statements. Folks like Birdsall may not like it, but the groups and individuals behind these comments represent millions of right-wing evangelicals and ultra-conservative Catholics.</p><p>And they sound pretty extreme to me.</p><p>But statements like this are just talk, right? Sadly, no. We’re already seeing <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/opponents-divided-how-or-whether-to-resist-supreme-court-ruling/2015/06/26/3219f626-1c12-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html">resistance to the ruling</a>. Same-sex couples still can’t get married in Louisiana, where Gov. Bobby Jindal initially announced that the state <a href="http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html">won’t comply with the ruling</a> – although he now seems to be <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jindal-louisiana-will-comply-same-sex-marriage-ruling-n383381">backing off</a>.</p><p>Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has issued <a href="http://tfninsider.org/2015/06/28/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-declares-war-on-the-constitution/">an opinion</a> asserting that government officials may have a “religious freedom” right to refuse service to same-sex couples.</p><p>In Alabama, officials in two counties have announced they will <a href="http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html">stop performing</a> all weddings rather than let same-sex couples get married. Roy Moore, the state’s infamous chief justice, says the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is worse than 19th century rulings <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/roy-moore-conservatives-gay-marriage-alabama-react/">upholding racial segregation</a>. (Americans United and allied organizations, which had already sued over the issue, are demanding immediate compliance with the decision.)</p><p>When the Supreme Court asserts the validity of justice and equal treatment and recognizes the indignity of failing to allow equal access to a fundamental right, it should be applauded by all rational Americans.</p><p>I don’t fear passage of a constitutional amendment. (The U.S. House of Representatives voted on a marriage amendment in July of 2006, where it fell way short of the votes requires for passage.) The concern in my comment cited by Birdsall is that the Religious Right and its political allies will now seize upon the Supreme Court’s clearly mistaken definition of “religious liberty” as outlined in last term’s <em>Hobby Lobby</em> decision to renew its efforts to hurt the LGBT community by trying to exempt businesses that provide services for weddings, housing, dining, etc. from public accommodation and civil-rights laws.</p><p>Finally, I always resist comparing Christian extremists generally with Islamic murderers, torturers and beheaders. However, to ignore the actions by some Christian extremists – such as the murderers of Drs. George Tiller and Barnett Slepian (among others) – and the harassment and bullying that has led to the suicides of LGBT youth is to ignore the atrocities that bigotry and extremism often spawn.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage">Marriage</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rick-santorum">Rick Santorum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mike-huckabee">Mike Huckabee</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/scott-walker">Scott Walker</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-family-association">American Family Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bryan-fischer">Bryan Fischer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tony-perkins">Tony Perkins</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/family-research-council">Family Research Council</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tim-wildmon">Tim Wildmon</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rick-scarborough">Rick Scarborough</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/judd-birdsall">Judd Birdsall</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ken-paxton">Ken Paxton</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bobby-jindal">Bobby Jindal</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/same-sex-marriage">same-sex marriage</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/au-celebrates-and-defends-marriage-equality">AU Celebrates -- And Defends -- Marriage Equality!</a></span></div></div>Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:30:52 +0000Rob Boston11211 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/radical-reactions-yes-the-religious-right-is-freaking-out-over-the-marriage#commentsRetreating Or Repositioning?: Southern Baptists And The ‘Culture War’https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/retreating-or-repositioning-southern-baptists-and-the-culture-war
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Is the Southern Baptist Convention surrendering in the &#039;culture war&#039;? Not quite. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>When the Religious Right started to become a prominent force in American politics in the late 1970s, its advocates had a major impact on the country’s largest Protestant denomination: the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).</p><p>Younger readers may be surprised to read that the SBC, which claims 16 million members, used to be fairly moderate on social issues. It strongly supported the separation of church and state, citing historical Baptist leaders like <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2004-church-state/featured/legacy-of-liberty">John Leland</a> and Isaac Backus.</p><p>But during the 1980s, the denomination fell to a well-organized fundamentalist bloc and flipped many of its positions. The SBC became closely aligned with the Religious Right and the Republican Party. It enlisted as a full-time combatant in the “culture war.”</p><p>In Washington, D.C., the SBC was represented by its lobbyist, Richard Land. Land pushed the denomination into even closer alignment with the GOP, often handicapping the prospects of Republican presidential candidates in the media. Land appeared at Religious Right meetings and never hesitated to reach for <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/extreme-lobbying-southern-baptists-richard-land-defends-nazi-analogies">the most lurid rhetoric</a>.</p><p>Land retired from the SBC in 2013. His successor, Russell Moore, is, according to a recent <em>Wall Street Journal</em><a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424127887324755104579072722223166570-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMjEyNDIyWj"> profile,</a> interested in stepping back from the culture wars.</p><p>The <em>Journal</em> reports that Moore believes it is time to dial down the rhetoric and pull back from partisan politics. He cites a “visceral recoil” among younger evangelicals to heavy handed church-based politicking.</p><p>“We are involved in the political process, but we must always be wary of being co-opted by it,” Moore said. “Christianity thrives when it is clearest about what distinguishes it from the outside culture.”</p><p>OK, what’s really going on here? I suspect several factors are at play.</p><p>First of all, short of giving the job to <a href="http://ffcoalition.com/">Ralph Reed</a>, it would have been next to impossible for the SBC to have hired a replacement more extreme and more partisan than Land. This is the guy, after all, who <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-s-end-sort-of-beleaguered-southern-baptist-lobbyist-heads-for">once spoke</a> of his desire to “consummate” the relationship between right-wing evangelicals and the GOP, compared Hillary Clinton to a witch and called U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer that “schmuck from New York.”</p><p>In comparison to Land, just about anyone would look more moderate.</p><p>Secondly, the use of less strident language is nice, but it doesn’t mean that the SBC’s policy positions are going to change. In fact, the <em>Journal</em> article makes it clear that the SBC has no plans to soften any of its far-right stands on issues like religion in public education, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, etc.</p><p>Sure, they’ll talk nicer while they push for theocracy. Big deal.</p><p>Thirdly, some of this appears to be a public relations stunt. The leaders of the SBC know they have a problem with younger people, so they are toning down the rhetoric in the hopes that more congregants won’t jump ship. This may fool some people, but again, it’s not a change of policy. (See point two above.)</p><p>Over at the American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, the poor man’s Glenn Beck,<a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2013/10/23/southern-baptists-sounding-full-scale-retreat-in-culture-war#.UmfJnmvoApA.twitter"> is on the warpath</a>, asserting that Moore is leading the SBC into a position of surrender.</p><p>“Since one man’s ‘pullback’ is another’s ‘full-scale retreat,’ social conservatives have a right to raise questions about the new course Moore is setting for the SBC,” Fischer bemoaned. Elsewhere he added, “Moore seems to have forgotten that Christ has not called us to be nice but to be good. Nice people never confront evil, but good people do.”</p><p>But Fischer throws a fit every day. It’s what he’s paid to do – be perpetually outraged and outrageous. We can hardly look to him for sound analysis of any issue outside of how to build really strong tinfoil hats.</p><p>I don’t see this as a retreat in the culture wars by the SBC, and it’s certainly not a surrender. I’d call it a tactical repositioning.</p><p>So keep your guard up. I suspect we haven’t seen the last of the SBC’s salvos against the church-state wall.</p><p>P.S. Remember, not all Baptists agree with the SBC on church-state issues. Our good friends at the<a href="http://www.bjcpa.org/"> Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty </a>have stood alongside AU for years, arguing for the traditional Baptist principle of freedom of conscience for all.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/russell-moore">Russell Moore</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bryan-fischer">Bryan Fischer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ralph-reed">ralph reed</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-leland">John Leland</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/baptist-joint-committee-religious-liberty">Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty</a></span></div></div>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:58:05 +0000Rob Boston9080 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/retreating-or-repositioning-southern-baptists-and-the-culture-war#commentsQuadrennial Question: Is The Religious Right Positively, Absolutely Dead?https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/quadrennial-question-is-the-religious-right-positively-absolutely-dead
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">I recommend that Americans not exaggerate the Religious Right’s power but don’t underestimate it either.
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The role of the Religious Right in the Republican Party and national political life is under a lot of scrutiny these days.</p><p>Everyone from Ralph Reed and Richard Land to Billy Graham and Tony Perkins did everything in their considerable power to steer the election to Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates, and they failed miserably. These folks even lost a string of referenda on issues such as taxpayer funding of religion, reproductive rights and marriage equality.</p><p>As a result of these losses, some pundits and prognosticators are declaring the fundamentalist political movement to be yesterday’s news. Few are pronouncing the Religious Right “undeniably and reliably” dead this time (as has happened often in the past). But respected analysts are finding it mighty sickly.</p><p>According to <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/politics/election/white-christian-voters-no-longer-hold-keys-to-the-white-house">Religion News Service</a>, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has concluded that relying on white Christian voters will never again spell national electoral success -- especially for the GOP. PRRI <a href="http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/11/american-values-post-election-survey-2012/">released a survey </a>yesterday about religion’s role in the presidential race.</p><p>Forty percent of Romney’s vote came from white evangelical Christians, but obviously that wasn’t enough to put him over the top. As a matter of fact, eight in ten of the Republican candidate’s votes came from white Christians of one sort or another.</p><p>In contrast, Barack Obama won with a more diverse mixture. Thirteen percent of his voters were white mainline Protestants, and 13 percent were white Catholics. Hispanic or other Catholics made up 10 percent of the Obama vote, and black Protestants accounted for 16 percent. The religiously unaffiliated contributed 25 percent to the president’s total. (Eight percent of Obama’s vote came from white evangelical Protestants! Somebody get the smelling salts for Franklin Graham.)</p><p>“The changing religious landscape is presenting a real challenge to the strategy that relied on motivated white Christians, particularly white evangelical Christians,” said PRRI Research Director Dan Cox. “They’re still turning out at similar levels as they did in previous elections, but their size in comparison to other groups is shrinking.”</p><p>The PRRI analysts have a good point. Diversity <em>is </em>increasing in America. But we shouldn’t get too giddy about the putative reduction in the Religious Right’s power.</p><p>I’ve been following the Religious Right since 1980, and I’ve seen this crowd go through lots of ups and downs. I recommend that Americans not exaggerate the Religious Right’s power but don’t underestimate it either.</p><p>White evangelical Christians remain one of the largest and most disciplined voting blocs in American politics. They show up at the polls on a regular basis, and they tend to vote heavily for candidates who want to restrict abortion, deny basic civil rights to the LGBT community and generally bring more religion (of their sort) into government.</p><p>Many Americans vote only in presidential elections or hotly contested state and local races. Most Religious Right voters show up every time. That means they have a disproportionate influence in the electoral process.</p><p>In addition, the Religious Right has achieved a dominant role in one of our two major political parties. This was clear during the Republican presidential primary when all the candidates competed with each other to curry favor with the fundamentalist bloc.</p><p>Religious Right leaders are warning the GOP leadership that the party had better not moderate its stands on abortion, gay rights and related social issues or there will be hell to pay (so to speak).</p><p>Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said conservative Christians will bolt if the party drops its platform plan calling for a ban on all abortions.</p><p>“[W]e will leave you if you betray us,” she wrote in<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-womens-vote-drop-our-plank-lose-our-vote-84925/"> a <em>Christian Post</em> essay.</a> “Yes, I said it – and I mean it.”</p><p>I haven’t heard many Republican establishment heavyweights taking on the party’s theocratic wing. For GOP big shots apparently, it’s can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.</p><p>To me, all this means that the Religious Right is likely to remain a powerful political factor, whether they win or lose in a given election year.</p><p>Needless to say, I am not a fan of the Religious Right. I think it is a dangerous movement that threatens the very foundation stones of American life – individual freedom and the separation of church and state. There’s nothing I’d like better than to see it lumber off the national scene.</p><p>I just don’t see it happening any time soon.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-right-0">Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ralph-reed">ralph reed</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham">Billy Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tony-perkins">Tony Perkins</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/franklin-graham">Franklin Graham</a></span></div></div>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:32:21 +0000Joseph L. Conn7732 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/quadrennial-question-is-the-religious-right-positively-absolutely-dead#commentsLand’s End (Sort Of): Beleaguered Southern Baptist Lobbyist Heads For Retirementhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-s-end-sort-of-beleaguered-southern-baptist-lobbyist-heads-for
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A faithful advocate of the Religious Right agenda for 25 years, Land has been shrill, aggressively partisan and deeply hostile to the church-state wall. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Notorious Southern Baptist lobbyist Richard Land has announced his retirement. I’d break out the champagne, but I fear that this is a mere change of personnel, not policy.</p><p>The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was once a staunch supporter of church-state separation. But in 1979, fundamentalists orchestrated a takeover that moved the nation’s largest Protestant denomination in exactly the opposite direction.</p><p>Land, head of the so-called Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, lobbied for the SBC for nearly 25 years. He is the embodiment of the SBC’s conversion from friend of religious liberty to agent of theocracy. A faithful advocate of the Religious Right agenda for 25 years, Land has been shrill, aggressively partisan and deeply hostile to the church-state wall.</p><p>Land’s career has come to an ignominious end. He leaves his post after being reprimanded by denominational leaders for plagiarizing material on his radio show and for making racially insensitive comments about the Trayvon Martin shooting death in Florida.</p><p>But these recent lapses in judgment come after over two decades of dubious lobbying for right-wing causes and shilling for the Republican Party (despite the church agency’s tax-exempt status). Land worked aggressively to merge the Religious Right with the GOP and dismissed any concerns about injecting religious concepts into the government.</p><p>In 1998, for example, he told <em>The New York Times</em> that Religious Right leaders wanted a more fruitful relationship with the Republican Party.</p><p>“The go-along, get-along strategy is dead,” he said. “No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.” </p><p>In 2007, Land gave his views on the relationship between religion and government, asserting, “When we convince a majority of Americans that we are right, that’s not called a theocracy, that’s called the democratic process.”</p><p>Land regularly touted GOP candidates that met his approval. For example, in the 2008 primary season he shamelessly plugged presidential hopeful Fred Thompson’s candidacy, calling him a “Southern-fried Reagan.”</p><p>“To see Fred work a crowd,” he gushed, “must be what it was like to watch Rembrandt paint."</p><p>Land was always quick with a strident comment about his political opponents. He compared Hillary Clinton to Darth Vader and a witch (warning that she would like to park her broom outside the Supreme Court for life).</p><p>In January, 2008, Land called U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer that "schmuck from New York." The lobbyist was angry because Schumer had pressed chief justice nominee John Roberts with questions during confirmation hearings. (The Oxford-educated Land said he didn’t know that some consider the word “crude, if not obscene.”)</p><p>And despite his supposed mission of advocating religious liberty, Land showed little courage in the task. He joined an interfaith coalition working to secure religious liberty rights for Muslims, but dropped out in January 2011 after church members’ raised complaints. He said some Southern Baptists falsely thought he was promoting Islam. (He also opposed the so-called “Ground Zero” mosque in Manhattan, arguing that it should be built elsewhere.)</p><p>This is just a sampling of Land’s checkered record. In short, he rarely missed an opportunity to dabble in partisan politics or oppose reproductive justice, gay rights or other advances for civil rights and civil liberties.</p><p>And, sadly, Land has promised to continue his crusade from other platforms.</p><p>In his retirement announcement, he said, ““I believe the ‘culture war’ is a titanic spiritual struggle for our nation’s soul and as a minister of Christ’s Gospel, I have no right to retire from that struggle.”</p><p>There is also little sign that the Southern Baptist denomination is ready to repent of its Religious Right profession of faith. When leaders choose a new head for the Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, it’s likely to be a Land clone – although maybe a less bombastic one.</p><p>Those of us who support individual freedom and church-state separation may be happy that Land will soon have one less pulpit for his misguided preachments, but we shouldn’t think our liberties are any safer because he’s moved on.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/lobbying-by-churches-and-religious-groups">Lobbying by Churches and Religious Groups</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ethics-religious-liberty-commission">Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission</a></span></div></div>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:05:22 +0000Joseph L. Conn7406 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-s-end-sort-of-beleaguered-southern-baptist-lobbyist-heads-for#commentsSeparation Obfuscation: Why Cardinal Dolan And Richard Land Are No John F. Kennedyshttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/separation-obfuscation-why-cardinal-dolan-and-richard-land-are-no-john-f
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">John F. Kennedy was willing to say that if the public interest clashed with his religious beliefs, he would put the public interest first.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York City was on “Face the Nation” yesterday and managed to pull off quite a feat. <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/cardinal-dolan-defends-santorum-on-kennedy-remark/#">He said he agrees</a> with President John F. Kennedy, who in 1960 gave a famous speech calling for “absolute” separation of church and state<em>, and</em> with former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who says that same JFK speech made him want to “throw up.”</p><p>I suspect that Dolan actually agrees more with Santorum – he’s just smart enough not to go on national television and say it.</p><p>Appearing on the same CBS program was Richard Land, head lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention. Like Dolan, Land endorses church-state separation in public. He sometimes even invokes historic Baptist figures like John Leland, who helped build the church-state wall. On “Face the Nation,” Land brought up Roger Williams and called church-state separation “our unique contribution.”</p><p>But of course anyone can go on television and make any kind of statement. It’s what happens after Dolan and Land leave the television studio that counts. And here their actions tell a different story.</p><p>Dolan, aided and abetted by the rest of the Catholic hierarchy, wants all of us to pay taxes to support his church’s private schools. Land also advocates tax funding of religious schools through vouchers. (And by the way, they want this funding in the form of a blank check – no significant government oversight, please.)</p><p>Dolan and Land want tax funding of various “faith-based” social services, again with no oversight. Remarkably, the bishops have gone so far as to argue that the government’s failure to extend this aid is a form of religious discrimination!</p><p>Dolan and Land want their theology to determine government national policy on reproductive issues, marriage equality and the civil rights of LGBT people. Both men seek government policies that will make it possible for the Catholic Church to impose its restrictive view on birth control on millions of Americans, many of them non-Catholics, through church-related institutions like hospitals and colleges that receive massive amounts of tax aid.</p><p>Land has even rhapsodized about some future period where evangelicals and Catholic join forces and achieve victory in the “culture wars” Luckily for the nation, that seems unlikely to happen. Most American Catholics don’t agree with the church hierarchy’s views on social issues, and polls show that younger evangelicals are breaking away from Land’s old guard on issues like gay rights.</p><p>Does that mean we can be complacent? No way. In a country where 50 percent is considered a good turnout on Election Day, a determined minority of theocrats can call the shots if the rest of us aren’t diligent.</p><p>Dolan and Land claim to support church-state separation, and Dolan even says he appreciates JFK’s famous speech. There is a passage from that speech that is often quoted: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”</p><p>That’s good stuff. But there’s another section of <a href="http://www.au.org/church-state/october-2010-church-state/featured/john-f-kennedy-on-religion-and-politics">the speech</a> that isn’t quoted as often that also needs to be heard and heeded: “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president, if I should be elected – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”</p><p>Kennedy was willing to say that if the public interest clashed with his religious beliefs, he would put the public interest first. Dolan and Land don’t agree. They believe a politician should put theological interests first. Therein lies the crucial difference between JFK’s interpretation of church-state separation and the version embraced by Dolan and Land. The latter protects us from a state-established church but not much else.</p><p>As a nation, we have endorsed Kennedy’s more expansive vision. We toss it aside for the Dolan/Land interpretation at our peril.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/other-issues-regarding-churches-and-politics">Other Issues regarding Churches and Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage">Marriage</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/cardinal-timothy-dolan">Cardinal Timothy Dolan</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-f-kennedy">John F. Kennedy</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/face-the-nation">Face the Nation</a></span></div></div>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:22:33 +0000Rob Boston6965 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/separation-obfuscation-why-cardinal-dolan-and-richard-land-are-no-john-f#commentsAppalling Amendment: Religious Right Seeks To Mandate Civil Marriage Law In North Carolinahttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/appalling-amendment-religious-right-seeks-to-mandate-civil-marriage-law-in
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">“An individual acting on discriminatory attitudes can be harmful and threatening, but government discrimination can relegate an entire classification of citizens to second-class citizenship.&quot;
--The Rev. Charles Francis Wilson</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>On May 8, North Carolina voters will decide on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you might expect, the drive for the measure is fueled almost entirely by ultra-conservative religious forces bent on imposing their doctrines by force of law.</p><p>Southern Baptist denominational leaders, the state’s Roman Catholic bishops and their Religious Right allies are weighing in heavily. State law already limits civil marriage to one man and one woman, but that isn’t enough for the theocracy-minded crowd. They want a constitutional amendment mandating "some-sects" marriage.</p><p>Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) has <a href="http://www.wfae.org/wfae/1_87_316.cfm?action=display&amp;id=8480">dropped into North Carolina</a> to demand that “every Bible-believing Christian” vote yes. And Richard Land, top lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission (designated a right-wing theocratic group by me) told <a href="http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7272/53/">local seminarians that voters </a>must adopt Amendment One to send a message to the Supreme Court.</p><p>According to the Associated Baptist Press, Land said, “If the people speak in North Carolina and in the other states and affirm marriage as being between a man and a woman, I believe that it will tip the balance of the Supreme Court to reject trying to foist by judicial imperialism same-sex marriage on a populace that is clearly opposed to it. If we lose, they will exercise their judicial imperialism. That’s what’s at stake, and you’re first up.”</p><p>How ludicrous! Same-sex marriage isn’t even before the high court, and when it arrives there, the justices will look at constitutional principles and precedent, not a referendum in North Carolina, when they make their decisions.</p><p>Fortunately, progressive clergy in the state, including some Southern Baptists, <a href="http://equalitync.org/clergy">are speaking out </a>against Amendment One.</p><p>Writing in the <em>Winston-Salem Journal </em>on Monday, the Rev. Charles Francis Wilson <a href="http://www2.journalnow.com/news/opinion/2012/apr/02/wsopin02-charles-francis-wilson-guest-columnist-wr-ar-2108918/">said the issue is about civil rights </a>and the separation of religion and government.</p><p>“To be sure, there are those who have clear, sincere religious convictions that define marriage as only being between one man and one woman, and these rights will be preserved even if the proposed amendment is defeated,” observed Wilson, a retired Southern Baptist minister and president of the local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Faith groups that hold such convictions will continue to practice their religion as they choose. It is not appropriate, however, for those religious convictions to be written into law that applies to all citizens.”</p><p>Wilson noted that America is not immune from government-enforced discrimination against minorities. He cited the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the mistreatment of African-Americans through Jim Crow laws.</p><p>“An individual acting on discriminatory attitudes can be harmful and threatening,” said Wilson, “but government discrimination can relegate an entire classification of citizens to second-class citizenship. Amendment One as government discrimination will embolden hate groups and, by implication, endorse homophobia.</p><p>“How can we even think,” he concluded, “of discriminating against our own citizens who pay taxes, contribute to our society, worship in our congregations, serve in the military and represent us as elected officials? We are not talking of some kind of alien creatures; we are talking of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and our law-abiding neighbors. In the United States, such discrimination is anathema.”</p><p>Will North Carolina voters heed the reactionary siren song of men like Perkins and Land, or will they listen to better angels of their nature represented by voices likes Wilson? On May 8, we’ll find out.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage">Marriage</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/north-carolina-amendment-one">North Carolina Amendment One</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/charles-francis-wilson">Charles Francis Wilson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tony-perkins">Tony Perkins</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/our-work/grassroots/north-carolina">North Carolina</a></span></div></div>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:28:46 +0000Joseph L. Conn6959 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/appalling-amendment-religious-right-seeks-to-mandate-civil-marriage-law-in#commentsProstituting The Pulpit: Religious Right Wants Churches To Get Partisan, But Most Americans Don’thttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/prostituting-the-pulpit-religious-right-wants-churches-to-get-partisan-but
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A solid majority of Americans – 73 percent – agree that religious leaders should not influence elections.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Poor Erik Stanley.</p>
<p>The Alliance Defense Fund attorney keeps pleading with evangelical clergy to step forward and become political bosses, but the clergy – and the American people – keep saying no.</p>
<p>Stanley and his Religious Right cronies salivate at the prospect of an evangelical Christian voting bloc marching in lockstep under the dictates of rigid right-wing pulpiteers and electing candidates who will tear down the wall of separation between church and state.</p>
<p>The ADF even has a project that encourages preachers to endorse or oppose candidates from their tax-exempt pulpits in violation of the federal law that bars nonprofits from using charitable contributions for partisan purposes. This year, the ADF’s so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” is scheduled for Oct. 2.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/churches-and-politics/patriot-pastors-bold-and-unafraid/">most recent screed</a>, Stanley again implored participation, saying, “America needs patriot pastors today more than ever. If you are a pastor, would you prayerfully consider joining with us in the Pulpit Initiative?”</p>
<p>Unfortunately for Erik, the vast majority of American clergy have no desire to prostitute their spiritual roles and become cogs in his political machine. And the vast majority of Americans don’t want that either.</p>
<p>As a matter of fact, scholarly evidence suggests that the number of Americans who oppose the politicization of religion is escalating. According to<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/do-americans-disagree-when-church-leaders-mix-religion-politics-54413/"> a story this week </a>at <em>The Christian Post</em>, General Social Survey data show that public disapproval of electioneering by religious leaders has grown sharply over the past two decades.</p>
<p>"The percent of people who say they strongly agree that religious leaders should not do those things really went up quite dramatically,” Duke University Sociology and Religion Professor Mark Chaves told <em>The Post</em>.</p>
<p>Survey pollsters asked Americans whether they agree or disagree with two different statements. One was “Religious leaders should not try to influence how people vote in elections.” The other was “Religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions."</p>
<p><em>The Post</em> reports that in 1991, 30 percent of respondents said they strongly agree that religious leaders should not influence voters in an election. In 2008, that number rose to 44 percent. Chaves told the publication that the survey’s combined figures show that a solid majority of Americans – 73 percent – agree that religious leaders should not influence elections.</p>
<p>"It's a clear trend in the direction of disapproval of religious leader involvement in politics," Chaves said.</p>
<p>Southern Baptist lobbyist Richard Land was predictably disgruntled, calling the survey questions vague and the results meaningless. (Funny, they didn’t seem that way to me at all.) While the supposedly nonpartisan denominational operative says he doesn’t think clergy should endorse candidates from the pulpit, he does think “we should be looking for candidates who endorse us."</p>
<p>What Land means is that the Republican office seekers should curry favor with religious conservatives in exchange for the evangelical vote. He once told <em>The New York Times</em> that the Religious Right was <a href="http://www.au.org/resources/religious-right-research/people/richard-land.html">tired of being taken </a>for granted by the GOP.</p>
<p>“The go-along, get-along strategy is dead,” Land said. “No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.”</p>
<p>Well, here’s some news, Dr. Land. Americans don’t want religion and politics to get hitched, let alone reach a – blush! – consummation! This is one situation where “abstinence only” is definitely the best approach.</p>
<p>Nobody benefits when religion is drawn into partisan politics. It undermines our secular democracy, divides congregations and communities, jeopardizes the rights of religious minorities and threatens the integrity of houses of worship.</p>
<p>Americans know that. Most clergy know that. It’s too bad that Stanley, Land and other Religious Right plotters don’t.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/alliance-defense-fund">Alliance Defense Fund</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/church-politcking">church politcking</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/erik-stanley">Erik Stanley</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mark-chaves">Mark Chaves</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pulpit-freedom-sunday">Pulpit Freedom Sunday</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span></div></div>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:25:32 +0000Joseph L. Conn1648 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/prostituting-the-pulpit-religious-right-wants-churches-to-get-partisan-but#commentsPerilous Plot: Religious Right Leaders Scheme To Intervene In 2012 Presidential Electionhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/perilous-plot-religious-right-leaders-scheme-to-intervene-in-2012
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">When theocrats who head multi-million-dollar ministries and political operations meet behind closed-doors to select a candidate to implement their agenda, the rest of us would do well to be informed about that situation.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Reporters with the mainstream media sure love to write about the presidential horse race, don’t they? And I find it interesting how certain candidates suddenly become all the rage. How many stories about Michele Bachmann have you seen recently?</p>
<p>But the media, so intent on polls and personalities, is missing a huge story: The Religious Right’s attempt to pick our next president.</p>
<p>Luckily, Brian T. Kaylor is <a href="http://ethicsdaily.com/conservative-christian-group-seeks-new-reagan-cms-18098">on the case</a>. <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2011/06/god-on-the-campaign.html">Kaylor</a>, a professor of communication studies at James Madison University and an editor at <em>Ethics Daily</em>, a site run by moderate Baptists, has penned some interesting stories about top Religious Right leaders who have been plotting in the hopes of finding a candidate to beat President Barack Obama next year.</p>
<p>The collection, led by a Texas TV preacher named James Robison, takes its inspiration from a similar effort in 1980. Back then, Robison and other far-right fundamentalists had soured on President Jimmy Carter and were looking for a new champion. They found one in the person of a former actor and ex-California governor named Ronald W. Reagan.</p>
<p>Robison calls the current round of meetings “Leadership Summits.” The backers are a diverse lot; some are national names and some are not. They include Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, David Barton of WallBuilders, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, Vonette Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, TV preacher Kenneth Copeland and Bishop Harry Jackson, a Maryland minster known for anti-gay activism. (Robison has a <a href="http://www.jamesrobison.net/?q=node/88">full list</a> of participants on his blog.)</p>
<p>What type of candidate do these Religious Right activists want? Someone who will restrict abortion, oppose full civil rights for gays and generally reflect a fundamentalist Christian perspective on both domestic and foreign affairs.</p>
<p>It’s the same Religious Right agenda we’ve seen for years with some Tea Party rhetoric thrown in. At the end of the day, these people believe they have the right to use the power of government to impose “morality” (that is, their religion) onto everyone.</p>
<p>The GOP field is large, and Kaylor reports that participants are divided over whom to support. However, with so many Texas pastors taking part, there has been speculation that the effort could become a vehicle for the presidential aspirations of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (who hasn’t yet announced that he’s running).</p>
<p>Whenever we write about meetings like this, some people wonder, what’s the big deal? Don’t pastors and other religious leaders have the right to get together and talk about who they would like to be president?</p>
<p>They do – but when theocrats who head multi-million-dollar ministries and political operations meet behind closed-doors to select a candidate to implement their agenda, the rest of us would do well to be informed about that situation. Our rights and freedoms are at stake.</p>
<p>The plan also raises questions of federal tax law. Many of the participants in these Leadership Summits head non-profit outfits. Once they’ve rallied around a candidate, what exactly do they plan to do to promote him or her? Will they use their tax-exempt ministries to intervene in partisan politics?</p>
<p>There is some evidence that they might. Robison told Kaylor that he doesn’t believe pastors should endorse candidates but then almost immediately undercut that assertion by insisting that pastors do have “the right to endorse” and said he “would never criticize” a minister for endorsing a candidate. He added that he would endorse a candidate “if I felt that I must.”</p>
<p>Personal endorsements are permitted, but ministers and heads of non-profits may not use institutional resources to endorse or oppose candidates. Robison is unclear on this important issue at best. His effort definitely bears watching.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jamesrobison.net/?q=node/88"><br /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/brian-kaylor">Brian Kaylor</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-barton">David Barton</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/gov-rick-perry">Gov. Rick Perry</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-robison">James Robison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tony-perkins">Tony Perkins</a></span></div></div>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:13:11 +0000Rob Boston2211 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/perilous-plot-religious-right-leaders-scheme-to-intervene-in-2012#commentsA Tale Of Two Sessions: Religious Right Conferees Decry Discrimination – But Only When It Affects Themhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-tale-of-two-sessions-religious-right-conferees-decry-discrimination-%E2%80%93-but
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I spent the day on Friday at Ralph Reed’s Faith &amp; Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing here in Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>The<a href="http://ffcoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/conf-speakers-v5.pdf"> list of speakers </a>included many presidential hopefuls, congressional leaders and Religious Right strategists who came to stir their base into action.<a href="http://ffcoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/conf-speakers-v5.pdf"></a></p>
<p>Much of the rhetoric was politics as usual, but an undercurrent of religious prejudice popped up all too often. The conference left me feeling fearful and concerned that out there in America, some people truly believe in this line of thought, no matter how hateful and ignorant it may be.</p>
<p>For example, I attended two break-out sessions in the afternoon where panels of “experts” discussed various issues.</p>
<p>The first was called “Fighting Anti-Christian Bigotry,” which later was changed in the program to the more neutral “Fighting Anti-Religious Bias.” However, it was clear this discussion was meant to address how Christians are “demonized” in America and how unfair it is.</p>
<p>The second session immediately following was called “Defeating Terrorism and Jihad.” Some members of this panel specifically propagated anti-Muslim sentiment and made discriminatory remarks against Muslim Americans.</p>
<p>Sitting in these sessions back to back, I couldn’t help but laugh (in disgust) at the irony and hypocrisy. In the first session, the speakers complained about how they allegedly face so much discrimination as Christians in America, and that in a free country like ours, such discrimination against a religious group is outrageous.</p>
<p>Tim Goeglein, vice president of Focus on the Family Action, told the 40 people or so assembled in the room that he is astonished that so many Americans are afraid to even admit they are Christian or to say “outwardly that…Jesus Christ is [their] savior.”</p>
<p>He cited an example in which a student at any Ivy League university came up to him after he gave a speech and whispered “I’m a Christian.” Goeglein said he was saddened that this student felt so persecuted against that she had to hide who she is to fit in.</p>
<p>Of course, the audience fed right into Goeglein’s pity party, gasping in disbelief and shaking their heads at the atrocity that it was.</p>
<p>But then, a few minutes later, when the session on terrorism and jihad began, religious discrimination was no longer quite as repugnant.</p>
<p>When two of the panel members – a professor from Catholic University and a gentleman from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – tried to educate the audience that all Muslims are not terrorists, many listeners weren’t having it. (In fact, I was stunned that Reed even allowed these rational and fair-minded speakers on the panel!)</p>
<p>Three of the speakers, however, satisfied the audience with their anti-Muslim rhetoric. Frank Gaffney from the American Center for Security Policy made it clear that any Muslim who believes in Shariah cannot be trusted. He pushed his book <em>Sharia: The Threat to America</em> and disingenuously instilled fear in the audience.</p>
<p>Erick Stakelbeck, a correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, did the same.</p>
<p>And Shaheryar Gill of the American Center for Law and Justice’s office in Pakistan, spoke of how he strives every day to protect Pakistani Christians from Muslim persecution. His stories served to fuel hate for all Muslims, including the Muslim Americans far away from Pakistan.</p>
<p>It was clear this was a heated topic for this crowd. During the Q &amp; A, one woman asked, “What about Obama? Why aren’t more Americans concerned about HIM being a Muslim?”</p>
<p>Another gentleman in the audience called for the resignation of the homeland security speaker for his position that only radical Islam is a threat. The audience vigorously applauded.</p>
<p>I could barely sit silent while I watched this ignorant and disgusting discussion unfold. This group, which was so appalled by alleged mistreatment of Christians, then turned around and mistreated another faith group in an even worse manner.</p>
<p>To most of us, the hypocrisy is obvious. But of course, the Religious Right has an answer for everything.</p>
<p>“We’re the majority,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, during the “Fighting Anti-Christian Bigotry” panel. “We shouldn’t be facing ANY discrimination.”</p>
<p>Everyone else, though, should expect to be treated like second-class citizens.</p>
<p>For a full report on the Ralph Reed extravaganza, check out the July/August issue of <em>Church &amp; State</em>.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-and-freedom-conference">Faith and Freedom Conference</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ralph-reed">ralph reed</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-discrimination">religious discrimination</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-right-0">Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tim-goeglein">Tim Goeglein</a></span></div></div>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:32:40 +0000Sandhya Bathija2534 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-tale-of-two-sessions-religious-right-conferees-decry-discrimination-%E2%80%93-but#commentsLand Of (No) Liberty: Southern Baptist Official Drops Out Of Religious Freedom Grouphttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-of-no-liberty-southern-baptist-official-drops-out-of-religious-freedom
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A top Baptist official – whose spiritual ancestors were often persecuted in colonial America because their views conflicted with state-established churches – can’t be bothered more than 200 years later to stick up for a persecuted minority.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Religious liberty is a fairly easy concept to grasp: All faiths have the right to exist, meet for worship, spread their ideas and build facilities. All must abide by certain laws, and the government must treat them equally.</p>
<p>There is nothing in our Constitution that says that certain groups will be denied these rights simply because some people don’t like them. Yes, some groups have unpopular views and doctrines – but the First Amendment protects them too. It sometimes takes courage to stand up for the rights of groups deemed unpopular, but our Constitutions demands nothing less. (And, of course, you also have the right to join no religious group at all by being an agnostic, atheist or skeptic.)</p>
<p>You would think that a religious group once in the minority, a group whose members once faced persecution and unpopularity, would understand that. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.</p>
<p>It has been reported that Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133201400">decided to resign</a> from an interfaith group that was formed to support the right of Muslims to build mosques in America.</p>
<p>The group was pulled together by the Anti-Defamation League after some residents of Murfreesboro, Tenn., went to court in an effort to block construction of a mosque simply because they don’t much like Muslims.</p>
<p>Land said he had to pull out of the group because some Southern Baptists got the wrong idea. They seemed to think he was promoting Islam.</p>
<p>“I don’t agree with that perception but it’s widespread and I have to respect it,” Land told the Associated Press.</p>
<p>Let me get this straight: A top Baptist official – whose spiritual ancestors were often persecuted (and even imprisoned) in colonial America because their views conflicted with state-established churches – can’t be bothered more than 200 years later to stick up for a persecuted minority? How quickly some forget their own history!</p>
<p>And where would today’s Baptists have gotten the impression that it’s all right to oppose a core freedom like allowing a religious groups to open a house of worship on land it bought? Maybe from Land himself. He opposed the so-called “Ground Zero” mosque in Manhattan, <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/influential-mosque-opponent-promotes-religious-freedom-abroad-for-us-government.php">employing</a> the nonsensical argument that allowing Muslims who had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to build three blocks from the World Trade Center site would somehow offend the families of those who died.</p>
<p>I should point out that right-thinking Baptists don’t agree with Land on this. Don Byrd at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty makes a good point, <a href="http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=4174&amp;Itemid=134">writing</a>, “Where is the rule that says we have to respect widespread mis-perception? How about shining a light on the truth instead? And reminding those you represent of core Baptist principles?”</p>
<p>Preach it, Bro. Byrd! If some Baptists are confused about what religious liberty really means, Land’s job is to educate them – not to give in to bigotry.</p>
<p>If he refuses to do that, Land should change the name of his group. I’d recommend the “Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty (Except for Groups We Don’t Like) Commission.”</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ethics-amp-religious-liberty-commission">Ethics &amp;amp; Religious Liberty Commission</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ground-zero-mosque">Ground Zero mosque</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/islam">Islam</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-liberty">Religious Liberty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span></div></div>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:03:47 +0000Rob Boston2158 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-of-no-liberty-southern-baptist-official-drops-out-of-religious-freedom#comments